PayPal

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

I take the title of this column from a 1994
British film, “The Madness of
King George,” which dramatizes the enveloping insanity of George III, the
monarch who lost America and was losing his mind. George kept committing
actions that were “embarrassing” to the nation, but most of all, to the dignity
of his station. Doctors were at a loss to diagnosis and possibly correct the
king’s bizarre behavior and eccentricities. Given the primitive state of mental
and physical science of the time, they were reduced to examining his stool for
clues to a remedy. The only doctor to make a semblance of progress was one who
insisted that all regal niceties be dropped and the King be put through a régimen
of what only could be called, in certain military circles, “square bashing.” George
would be put in a straight jacket every time he “misbehaved.”

But George III’s madness was a low-level one
compared to Chancellor Angela
Merkel’s policy of madness. She cannot help but be aware of the insanity and
the suicidal consequences of her policies, but she chooses them. George’s
madness could not be corrected with rational persuasion or introspection. He
was not capable of conscious irrationality. His mind careened in its own world
of causo-connections.

As does Merkel’s.

Merkel’s madness seeks to reduce her nation
to being a deferential caliphate of Islam against the will of the non-Islamic
population, which is expected to meld peacefully without complaint with the
savages, rapists, thieves and welfare parasites. It is based on the madness of
her brand of collectivism, Marxism.

Marxism itself is a system of madness that
defies or denigrates human volition and goes against any measure of rationality.
If you were born in a certain “class,” preferably a poor one, then you were
destined to become a communist, or at least a socialist, and resent anyone
better off economically than you. Dialectical Materialism brands you from the beginning
and you have no choice about what you are and what you condition is. Your
economic condition or circumstances indelibly “condition” how you think and
behave.

To Merkel’s mind, immigrants who rape,
murder, or turn into bloody jihadis are just that way, through no fault
of their own, it’s their cultural heritage, and they must not be judged
according to Western measures of civil conduct, they were just born that way,
and extraordinary efforts must be made to persuade them to be nice, and not
commit crimes. They are blameless because that was how they were born.

The Grand Mufti reviewing Muslim troops in Bosnia

On the other hand, native Germans must make
an effort to accommodate migrants and Muslims, and form a societal union with
them until all conflict between Western and Muslim culture ceases. Unfortunately,
the only “dialect” Muslims practice and understand is force. “Peace” in Islamic
“dialectics” means your submission, or your death.

If you ever knew freedom under capitalism,
you will, because of inevitable, irresistible Hegelian
forces, come to question capitalism and your freedom, and argue for
impersonal anonymity as a member of a “class.” Your mind and your values will
automatically change. You will no longer value freedom. You will be absorbed into a great collective.
You will become one with the “Borg.”

The Phenomenology of Spirit charts the development of
consciousness as it rises from lowly common sense to the heights of what Hegel
calls ‘absolute knowing’ – the unconditioned form of thinking proper to
philosophy itself.

This has been true of Islam since day one of
the “religion” in the 7th century. Unless an individual born into a Muslim milieu
resists the appropriation of his mind and body, he becomes a part of the Islamic
gestalt or the global Islamic Ummah. In Germany, in Sweden, in
other European nations swamped by hostile migrants, it becomes a “clash of gestalts.”
It is no wonder why the Left finds common cause with Islam. Marxism entails the
surrender of your freedom, of your mind, of your “materialistic” values.

Angela Merkel

(born 1954) was, in a sense, “ready-made”
to become the nation-destroying beast she is now. Wikipedia reports her early
years:

Like most young people in the German Democratic Republic (East
Germany), Merkel was a member of the Free
German Youth (FDJ), the official youth movement sponsored by the ruling Socialist Unity Party. Membership
was nominally voluntary, but those who did not join found it difficult to gain
admission to higher education] She did not participate in the
secular coming of age ceremony Jugendweihe,
however, which was common in East Germany. Instead, she was confirmed. Later, at the Academy of
Sciences, she became a member of the FDJ district board and secretary for
"Agitprop"
(Agitation and Propaganda). Merkel claimed that she was secretary for culture.
When Merkel's one-time FDJ district chairman contradicted her, she insisted
that: "According to my memory, I was secretary for culture. But what do I
know? I believe I won't know anything when I'm 80." Merkel's progress in
the compulsory Marxism–Leninism course was graded only genügend
(sufficient, passing grade) in 1983 and 1986.

After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, it was
easy for her to make the transition from a communist political environment to a
statist one, once East Germany was dissolved.

“It’s been our misfortune of have the wrong
religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice
for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammadan religion too would have
been much more acceptable to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be
Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” (p. 165, “Bonhoeffer, Pastor,
Martyr, Prophet, Spy”, by Eric Metaxas)

Merkel’s Muslim-friendly actions in favor of Islam
are basically, part and parcel of Hitler’s admiration of Islam as a complete
and unmovable state, society, state of mind, and existence. I’m certain that
the historical ideational connection has occurred to her and her Party, but it
can’t be one she appreciates or wishes to draw attention to. An article by Joost
Niemöller, appearing on the Gates of Vienna
in August 2015, states:

It is well
known that Mein Kampf is still very popular in the Muslim world: for
example, in Egyptand some Arab countries. But also in Turkey. In
Iranor in Pakistan. Germans
in the Islamic world are being addressed enthusiastically, because they hail
from “The Land of Hitler”. Not so long ago I heard this again from a German
friend who travels to the Middle East regularly. In the Islamic world a direct
link is being drawn between Hitler’s warfare and the Jihad. At the same time
it’s very fashionable among Muslims to deny the Holocaust, which in the eyes of
an anti-Semitic would rather damage Hitler’s status as a hero; why then still
read his book? But then the denial of the Holocaust is again necessary to
refuse the justification for the State of Israel.

“It’s been
our misfortune of have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of
the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The
Mohammadan religion too would have been much more acceptable to us than
Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and
flabbiness?” (page 165, “Bonhoeffer, Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy”, by Eric
Metaxas

When it
comes to feeding hate, logic is irrelevant.

Mein Kampf‘s popularity in the Muslim world is only one
signal. Many links exist between Nazism and present day Islamism. One of the
abundant examples is the fact that the fake document “The Protocols of the
Elders of Zion”[7], promoted by the Nazi ideologist Rosenberg, which
would be the ultimate proof of a Jewish complot to overthrow the Christian
world, became popular again among the PLO via the Islamic world….

Of course it
is characteristic of the existing politically correct climate that such
thoroughly researched and well-founded historical works do not constitute part
of any basic debate about Islam in the mainstream media. Presently Islam
is part of an obsolete multicultural society; anybody criticizing this is a
kind of Nazi. That the truth is in fact the other way around is a very
unwelcome message: both Islamic and Nazi ideologies not only have common
elements, but also have a common history. This continues today and by itself
provides enough reason to dig further.

Yes, we know that Mein Kampf is popular
in the Muslim world.

Yes, we know Amin el-Husseini, the
Jew-hating Jerusalem Mufti, who was linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and who
hooked up with the Nazi empire. We know that one picture of his meeting with
Hitler. We know that after the war he was left unpunished and remained active
in the Middle East.

The popularity of Mein Kampf in the
Middle East is no coincidence.

Amin el-Husseini was not just a bizarre
anomaly.

The broad distribution of the
“Protocols of the Elders of Zion” in the Muslim world is part of a bigger
picture. In that picture, Hitler plays a leading role.

Do not expect Merkel to backtrack on her
policy of culturally annihilating her own country. To do that would require
that she contradict the Hegelian and altruist imperatives that she sacrifice
her country to the “neediest” – in this case hundreds of thousands of alleged
Syrian “refugees,” who are not going to assimilate into German culture except
to learn how to game the country’s welfare system.

“We must assume at
the current time that it was a terrorist attack,” Merkel said on Tuesday, the New York Times reported. “I know that it would be
particularly difficult for all of us to bear if it would be confirmed that this
deed was carried out by a person who sought protection and asylum in Germany.”

A German
Snowflake?

Won’t protect his
girlfriend?

Bruce Bawer in his December 21st FrontPage
article, “2016:
A Turning Point for Europe?” written a day after a Muslim driving a stolen
truck ploughed into a Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12 and injuring
dozens, wrote,

….Europeans didn't have to be familiar with Islamic theology to
understand that, like it or not, they were at war. And they didn't need to know
the term dhimmi to recognize that their elites were kowtowing to
would-be conquerors.

These elites
inhabited a bubble of privilege, protected from the consequences of their own
policies. Most Western Europeans did not. In the space of a few years, they'd
seen their neighborhoods dramatically transformed. Their once-safe streets were
dangerous. Their children were harassed at school. Jews, especially, were
terrorized. There was no sign of a reversal in this rapid process of
civilizational decline and destruction. And if they tried to discuss the issue
honestly, they risked being labeled bigots, losing their jobs, and even being put
on trial. Here and there, voters found, and supported, politicians who
articulated their concerns. But the political establishment erected cordons
sanitaires around them, denying them power and, when possible, dragging
them, too, into court. Instead of heeding the voice of the people, officials
doubled down.

These elites
inhabited a bubble of privilege, protected from the consequences of their own
policies. Most Western Europeans did not. In the space of a few years, they'd
seen their neighborhoods dramatically transformed. Their once-safe streets were
dangerous. Their children were harassed at school. Jews, especially, were
terrorized. There was no sign of a reversal in this rapid process of
civilizational decline and destruction. And if they tried to discuss the issue
honestly, they risked being labeled bigots, losing their jobs, and even being
put on trial. Here and there, voters found, and supported, politicians who
articulated their concerns. But the political establishment erected cordons
sanitaires around them, denying them power and, when possible, dragging
them, too, into court. Instead of heeding the voice of the people, officials
doubled down.

And then
came the final straw: in August 2015, Western Europe's most powerful leader,
Angela Merkel, invited all Syrian refugees to come to Germany. The floodgates
opened even wider. Syrian refugees poured in – but most of them proved to be
neither Syrians nor refugees. [including Somalians, Afghanis, Nigerians, Pakistanis,
mostly men and very few women from the worst pestholes in the world] Naive
do-gooders who welcomed these monsters into their homes ended up being raped
and robbed. And the terrorist attacks became even more frequent. On November
13, 2015, jihadists slaughtered 130 people in and around the Bataclan Theater
in Paris. Then came the aforementioned New Year's Eve carnage. Brussels was hit
in March, with 32 civilian deaths. On Bastille Day, a truck-driving terrorist
mowed down 86 pedestrians on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice. And these were
just a few of the jihadist offenses committed in Western Europe during this
period. As I write this, a Turkish cop shouting “Allahu akbar!” has just gunned
down Russia's ambassador to Turkey, and – shades of Nice – a truck driven by a
Muslim has plowed into a busy Christmas market in the center of Berlin, killing
at least 12 and injuring dozens. (P.S. Apparently Merkel heard of the attack
shortly after attending a celebration of the “International Day of Migrants.”
This is not a joke.)[bracketed information is mine]

I am convinced that Merkel's German establishment is on the side of
the "atrocious people," not the German population. The same goes for
the rest of the EU establishment country by country. I must say the same about
the British establishment. For God's sake, London has a Muslim mayor??? Sharia
courts blossom all over the place, and while declared illegal, are left to
operate? Muslims of all shades run riot over school girls? But Merkel sheds
crocodile tears over the victims of the Berlin truck attack. I don't believe
there was a word of sincerity in her "Oh! How awful!"

But she is not going to do a damned substantial thing, no volte-face
against her immigration policies will be emanate from her, except for the
proposed pathetic burqa ban. She's got too much invested in
"transforming" Germany into a "brown" nation (as Obama has
admitted is one of his goals for America), or into a non-Western country. In
virtually every instance of terrorism, "migrants" have been
responsible and they're going to continue running trucks over infidels. She let
them in, welcomed them, and saddled German's with the stupendous welfare bill.
Merkel is a kind of Mother Teresa, fully vested in a kind of nationalist
altruism; "We must take care of refugees, help to cure their sores and
give them chances in life, jobs, etc., it is the duty of every German to help
the government in that crusade, even if it kills them…..

Let no-one tell you
that only the perpetrators of these crimes are to blame. The politicians, who
welcomed Islam into their country, are guilty as well. And it is not just Frau
Merkel in Germany, it is the entire political elite in Western Europe.

Out of
political-correctness, they have deliberately turned a blind eye to Islam. They
have refused to inform themselves about its true nature. They refuse to
acknowledge that is all in the Koran: the permission to kill Jews and
Christians (Surah 9:29), to terrorize non-Muslims (8:12), to rape young girls
(65:4), to enslave people for sex (4:3), to lie about one's true goals (3:54),
and the command to make war on the infidels (9:123) and subjugate the entire
world to Allah (9:33)….

That is why there is
little doubt that 2017 will bring Germany and the entire West more violence,
more attacks on our women and daughters, more bloodshed, more tears, more
sorrow. The terrible truth is that, in all likelihood, we ain't seen nothing
yet.

We have to drive
politicians, such as Angela Merkel, my own weak Dutch Prime Minister Mark
Rutte, and their like minded colleagues in other countries, from power. We must
liberate our countries.

And believe me, my
friends, that is exactly what we are going to do. Terrorists, who hope to break
our resolve with bloody atrocities will not succeed. We will choose new and
brave leaders, we will de-Islamize, we will win!

Then we will have leaders in possession of all their faculties. And Mad
Queen Angela and her hateful, mad policies will be consigned to the dustbin of
history.

I take the title of this column from a 1994
British film, “The Madness of
King George,” which dramatizes the enveloping insanity of George III, the
monarch who lost America and was losing his mind. George kept committing
actions that were “embarrassing” to the nation, but most of all, to the dignity
of his station. Doctors were at a loss to diagnosis and possibly correct the
king’s bizarre behavior and eccentricities. Given the primitive state of mental
and physical science of the time, they were reduced to examining his stool for
clues to a remedy. The only doctor to make a semblance of progress was one who
insisted that all regal niceties be dropped and the King be put through a régimen
of what only could be called, in military circles, “square bashing.” George
would be put in a straight jacket every time he “misbehaved.”

But George III’s madness was a low-level one
compared to Chancellor Angela
Merkel’s policy of madness. She cannot help but be aware of the insanity and
the suicidal consequences of her policies, but she chooses them. George’s
madness could not be corrected with rational persuasion or introspection. He
was not capable of conscious irrationality. His mind careened in its own world
of causo-connections.

As does Merkel’s.

Merkel’s madness, seeks to reduce her nation
to being a deferential caliphate of Islam against the will of the non-Islamic
population, which is expected to meld peacefully without complaint with the
savages, rapists, thieves and welfare parasites. It is based on the madness of
her brand of collectivism, Marxism.

Marxism itself is a system of madness that
defies or denigrates human volition and goes against any measure of rationality.
If you were born in a certain “class,” preferably a poor one, then you were
destined to become a communist, or at least a socialist, and resent anyone
better off economically than you. Dialectical Materialism brands you from the beginning
and you have no choice about what you are and what you condition is. Your
economic condition or circumstances indelibly “condition” how you think and
behave.

To Merkel’s mind, immigrants who rape,
murder, or turn into bloody jihadis are just that way, through no fault
of their own, it’s their cultural heritage, and they must not be judged
according to Western measures of civil conduct, they were just born that way,
and extraordinary efforts must be made to persuade them to be nice, and not
commit crimes. They are blameless because that was how they were born.

The Grand Mufti reviewing Muslim troops in Bosnia

On the other hand, native Germans must make
an effort to accommodate migrants and Muslims, and form a societal union with
them until all conflict between Western and Muslim culture ceases. Unfortunately,
the only “dialect” Muslims practice and understand is force. “Peace” in Islamic
“dialectics” means your submission, or your death.

If you ever knew freedom under capitalism,
you will, because of inevitable, irresistible Hegelian
forces, come to question capitalism and your freedom, and argue for
impersonal anonymity as a member of a “class.” Your mind and your values will
automatically change. You will no longer value freedom. You will be absorbed into a great collective.
You will become one with the “Borg.”

The Phenomenology of Spirit charts the development of
consciousness as it rises from lowly common sense to the heights of what Hegel
calls ‘absolute knowing’ – the unconditioned form of thinking proper to
philosophy itself.

This has been true of Islam since day one of
the “religion” in the 7th century. Unless an individual born into a Muslim milieu
resists the appropriation of his mind and body, he becomes a part of the Islamic
gestalt or the global Islamic Ummah. In Germany, in Sweden, in
other European nations swamped by hostile migrants, it becomes a “clash of gestalts.”
It is no wonder why the Left finds common cause with Islam. Marxism entails the
surrender of your freedom, of your mind, of your “materialistic” values.

Angela Merkel

(born 1954) was, in a sense, “ready-made”
to become the nation-destroying beast she is now. Wikipedia reports her early
years:

Like most young people in the German Democratic Republic (East
Germany), Merkel was a member of the Free
German Youth (FDJ), the official youth movement sponsored by the ruling Socialist Unity Party. Membership
was nominally voluntary, but those who did not join found it difficult to gain
admission to higher education] She did not participate in the
secular coming of age ceremony Jugendweihe,
however, which was common in East Germany. Instead, she was confirmed. Later, at the Academy of
Sciences, she became a member of the FDJ district board and secretary for
"Agitprop"
(Agitation and Propaganda). Merkel claimed that she was secretary for culture.
When Merkel's one-time FDJ district chairman contradicted her, she insisted
that: "According to my memory, I was secretary for culture. But what do I
know? I believe I won't know anything when I'm 80." Merkel's progress in
the compulsory Marxism–Leninism course was graded only genügend
(sufficient, passing grade) in 1983 and 1986.

After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, it was
easy for her to make the transition from a communist political environment to a
statist one, once East Germany was dissolved.

“It’s been our misfortune of have the wrong
religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice
for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammadan religion too would have
been much more acceptable to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be
Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” (p. 165, “Bonhoeffer, Pastor,
Martyr, Prophet, Spy”, by Eric Metaxas)

Merkel’s Muslim-friendly actions in favor of Islam
are basically, part and parcel of Hitler’s admiration of Islam as a complete
and unmovable state, society, state of mind, and existence. I’m certain that
the historical ideational connection has occurred to her and her Party, but it
can’t be one she appreciates or wishes to draw attention to. An article by Joost
Niemöller, appearing on the Gates of Vienna
in August 2015, states:

It is well
known that Mein Kampf is still very popular in the Muslim world: for
example, in Egyptand some Arab countries. But also in Turkey. In
Iranor in Pakistan. Germans
in the Islamic world are being addressed enthusiastically, because they hail
from “The Land of Hitler”. Not so long ago I heard this again from a German
friend who travels to the Middle East regularly. In the Islamic world a direct
link is being drawn between Hitler’s warfare and the Jihad. At the same time
it’s very fashionable among Muslims to deny the Holocaust, which in the eyes of
an anti-Semitic would rather damage Hitler’s status as a hero; why then still
read his book? But then the denial of the Holocaust is again necessary to
refuse the justification for the State of Israel.

“It’s been
our misfortune of have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of
the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The
Mohammadan religion too would have been much more acceptable to us than
Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and
flabbiness?” (page 165, “Bonhoeffer, Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy”, by Eric
Metaxas

When it
comes to feeding hate, logic is irrelevant.

Mein Kampf‘s popularity in the Muslim world is only one
signal. Many links exist between Nazism and present day Islamism. One of the
abundant examples is the fact that the fake document “The Protocols of the
Elders of Zion”[7], promoted by the Nazi ideologist Rosenberg, which
would be the ultimate proof of a Jewish complot to overthrow the Christian
world, became popular again among the PLO via the Islamic world….

Of course it
is characteristic of the existing politically correct climate that such
thoroughly researched and well-founded historical works do not constitute part
of any basic debate about Islam in the mainstream media. Presently Islam
is part of an obsolete multicultural society; anybody criticizing this is a
kind of Nazi. That the truth is in fact the other way around is a very
unwelcome message: both Islamic and Nazi ideologies not only have common
elements, but also have a common history. This continues today and by itself
provides enough reason to dig further.

Yes, we know that Mein Kampf is popular
in the Muslim world.

Yes, we know Amin el-Husseini, the
Jew-hating Jerusalem Mufti, who was linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and who
hooked up with the Nazi empire. We know that one picture of his meeting with
Hitler. We know that after the war he was left unpunished and remained active
in the Middle East.

The popularity of Mein Kampf in the
Middle East is no coincidence.

Amin el-Husseini was not just a bizarre
anomaly.

The broad distribution of the
“Protocols of the Elders of Zion” in the Muslim world is part of a bigger
picture. In that picture, Hitler plays a leading role.

Do not expect Merkel to backtrack on her
policy of culturally annihilating her own country. To do that would require
that she contradict the Hegelian and altruist imperatives that she sacrifice
her country to the “neediest” – in this case hundreds of thousands of alleged
Syrian “refugees,” who are not going to assimilate into German culture except
to learn how to game the country’s welfare system.

“We must assume at
the current time that it was a terrorist attack,” Merkel said on Tuesday, the New York Times reported. “I know that it would be
particularly difficult for all of us to bear if it would be confirmed that this
deed was carried out by a person who sought protection and asylum in Germany.”

Bruce Bawer in his December 21st FrontPage
article, “2016:
A Turning Point for Europe?” written a day after a Muslim driving a stolen
truck ploughed into a Christmas market in Berlin, killing 12 and injuring
dozens, wrote,

….Europeans didn't have to be familiar with Islamic theology to
understand that, like it or not, they were at war. And they didn't need to know
the term dhimmi to recognize that their elites were kowtowing to
would-be conquerors.

These elites
inhabited a bubble of privilege, protected from the consequences of their own
policies. Most Western Europeans did not. In the space of a few years, they'd
seen their neighborhoods dramatically transformed. Their once-safe streets were
dangerous. Their children were harassed at school. Jews, especially, were
terrorized. There was no sign of a reversal in this rapid process of
civilizational decline and destruction. And if they tried to discuss the issue
honestly, they risked being labeled bigots, losing their jobs, and even being put
on trial. Here and there, voters found, and supported, politicians who
articulated their concerns. But the political establishment erected cordons
sanitaires around them, denying them power and, when possible, dragging
them, too, into court. Instead of heeding the voice of the people, officials
doubled down.

These elites
inhabited a bubble of privilege, protected from the consequences of their own
policies. Most Western Europeans did not. In the space of a few years, they'd
seen their neighborhoods dramatically transformed. Their once-safe streets were
dangerous. Their children were harassed at school. Jews, especially, were
terrorized. There was no sign of a reversal in this rapid process of
civilizational decline and destruction. And if they tried to discuss the issue
honestly, they risked being labeled bigots, losing their jobs, and even being
put on trial. Here and there, voters found, and supported, politicians who
articulated their concerns. But the political establishment erected cordons
sanitaires around them, denying them power and, when possible, dragging
them, too, into court. Instead of heeding the voice of the people, officials
doubled down.

And then
came the final straw: in August 2015, Western Europe's most powerful leader,
Angela Merkel, invited all Syrian refugees to come to Germany. The floodgates
opened even wider. Syrian refugees poured in – but most of them proved to be
neither Syrians nor refugees. [including Somalians, Afghanis, Nigerians, Pakistanis,
mostly men and very few women from the worst pestholes in the world] Naive
do-gooders who welcomed these monsters into their homes ended up being raped
and robbed. And the terrorist attacks became even more frequent. On November
13, 2015, jihadists slaughtered 130 people in and around the Bataclan Theater
in Paris. Then came the aforementioned New Year's Eve carnage. Brussels was hit
in March, with 32 civilian deaths. On Bastille Day, a truck-driving terrorist
mowed down 86 pedestrians on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice. And these were
just a few of the jihadist offenses committed in Western Europe during this
period. As I write this, a Turkish cop shouting “Allahu akbar!” has just gunned
down Russia's ambassador to Turkey, and – shades of Nice – a truck driven by a
Muslim has plowed into a busy Christmas market in the center of Berlin, killing
at least 12 and injuring dozens. (P.S. Apparently Merkel heard of the attack
shortly after attending a celebration of the “International Day of Migrants.”
This is not a joke.)[bracketed information is mine]

I am convinced that Merkel's German establishment is on the side of
the "atrocious people," not the German population. The same goes for
the rest of the EU establishment country by country. I must say the same about
the British establishment. For God's sake, London has a Muslim mayor??? Sharia
courts blossom all over the place, and while declared illegal, are left to
operate? Muslims of all shades run riot over school girls? But Merkel sheds
crocodile tears over the victims of the Berlin truck attack. I don't believe
there was a word of sincerity in her "Oh! How awful!"

But she is not going to do a damned substantial thing, no volte-face
against her immigration policies will be emanate from her, except for the
proposed pathetic burqa ban. She's got too much invested in
"transforming" Germany into a "brown" nation (as Obama has
admitted is one of his goals for America), or into a non-Western country. In
virtually every instance of terrorism, "migrants" have been
responsible and they're going to continue running trucks over infidels. She let
them in, welcomed them, and saddled German's with the stupendous welfare bill.
Merkel is a kind of Mother Teresa, fully vested in a kind of nationalist
altruism; "We must take care of refugees, help to cure their sores and
give them chances in life, jobs, etc., it is the duty of every German to help
the government in that crusade, even if it kills them…..

Let no-one tell you
that only the perpetrators of these crimes are to blame. The politicians, who
welcomed Islam into their country, are guilty as well. And it is not just Frau
Merkel in Germany, it is the entire political elite in Western Europe.

Out of
political-correctness, they have deliberately turned a blind eye to Islam. They
have refused to inform themselves about its true nature. They refuse to
acknowledge that is all in the Koran: the permission to kill Jews and
Christians (Surah 9:29), to terrorize non-Muslims (8:12), to rape young girls
(65:4), to enslave people for sex (4:3), to lie about one's true goals (3:54),
and the command to make war on the infidels (9:123) and subjugate the entire
world to Allah (9:33)….

That is why there is
little doubt that 2017 will bring Germany and the entire West more violence,
more attacks on our women and daughters, more bloodshed, more tears, more
sorrow. The terrible truth is that, in all likelihood, we ain't seen nothing
yet.

We have to drive
politicians, such as Angela Merkel, my own weak Dutch Prime Minister Mark
Rutte, and their like minded colleagues in other countries, from power. We must
liberate our countries.

And believe me, my
friends, that is exactly what we are going to do. Terrorists, who hope to break
our resolve with bloody atrocities will not succeed. We will choose new and
brave leaders, we will de-Islamize, we will win!

Then we will have leaders in possession of all their faculties. And Mad
Queen Angela and her hateful, mad policies will be consigned to the dustbin of
history.

The book’s title refers to the pretense that embracing “diversity”
actually promotes diversity of all types, a claim commonly heard to this
day. Thiel had been a student at Stanford when, in January 1987,
demonstrators defending “the Rainbow Agenda” chanted “Hey hey, ho ho, Western
Culture’s got to go!” This protest led to the infamous “revision” (i.e.,
suppression) of the Western Culture requirement at Stanford, replaced with a
freshman sequence called Cultures, Ideas, and Values, mandating an emphasis on
race, gender, and class.

Later in her article, Patal notes that

Furthermore, “multiculturalism” did not involve greater emphasis on
mastering foreign languages or carefully studying cultures other than those of
the English-speaking world. Instead, work in literature and culture programs
was (and still is) done increasingly in English and focused on contemporary
writers. Nor did multiculturalism, any more than the word diversity, mean
familiarizing students with a diversity of views. Rather, as [Elizabeth] Fox-Genovese
summarized it, it meant requiring students “to agree with or even applaud views
and values that mock the values with which they have been reared.” And
all this, she observed, was being accompanied by rampant grade inflation.

So, if anyone thought that “diversity” simply
meant several individuals of various ethnic or cultural backgrounds being by
happenstance squinched together into a group, or that “diversity” was similar
to a bird aviary in which dozens of different species flitted around in an
enclosed space, he would not be far off the mark. There have been dozens of TV
and movie series and films that flaunt not only their racial diversity, but
their cultural and sexual diversity, as well (i.e., the early and later
manifestations of Star Trek).

A diversity-rich cast, albeit no Muslims

For example, The Walking
Dead, at several points in its seven-Season-old broadcast, has featured
blacks as well as whites, Koreans, Hispanics in leading and central roles, as
well as Indians (or perhaps Pakastanis, it was never explained),
“gender-breakers,” “mixed” couples, the disabled (in wheelchairs), and the
“under-aged” (e.g., pre-teen children shooting guns at zombies and the living).
The most recent Seasons of the series have introduced lesbian and gay couples,
as well as overweight characters.

The most conspicuously absent group are
Muslims; they appear neither as living survivors of the apocalypse nor as
zombies, neither as bearded imams nor as women in burqas or hijabs. I do not
think their absence is an oversight. I do not think it is a stretch of the
imagination to assume that the producers were warned off casting characters as
living or dead Muslims. Or perhaps, being so diversity-conscious, and sensitive
to the sensitivities of Muslims, the producers decided not to “defame” Muslims
or Islam with such risky casting, and warned themselves off the idea. I contacted Scott Gimple, The Walking Dead’s
“show runner,” on his Facebook page, with the question, but have received no
response.

One is left to hypothesize if the producers
of The Walking Dead are voluntarily or consciously casting the series as
“diverse” as possible (there is, after all, a finite number of under-represented
groups), or are they under an obligation to become diversity-obsessed by federal or state law, in
alliance with gender
and ethnic groups? The Walking Dead, as well as House of Cards, another lavishly produced
and racially and gender-conscious TV series, , get tax-rebates in Georgia and
Maryland respectively, where they are filmed, and so “diversity” is too likely a
condition of the tax-breaks.

Another diversity-rich TV series. Most of its villains are "white"

One might object to the foregoing analysis with
the claim that these and many other TV and film productions reflect the true
diversity of Americans. But, do they? If they did, why the current
Marx-inspired campaign against “white privilege”? Why the vile, but also
hysterical campaign to “deconstruct” whites so that they feel “guilt” about
being white, and apologize profusely for having created Western Culture and civilization,
which somehow “oppress” non-whites of every race and creed?

The leftists have gone to great lengths to
connect racial “identity politics” with political “identity politics,”
contending that it was the “white” vote that got Donald Trump his presidential
victory, (when the evidence was clearly obvious when in numerous videos one saw
the racial composition of Trump’s rallies. While the attendance was mostly
“white,” large swathes of the audiences were black and “Asian.”)

The British Film Academy of Film and
Television Arts (BAFTA) has issued new diversity guidelines to be
eligible for nomination. Donna Edmunds on BreitbartLondon exposes the farce.

"From
2019 onwards, nominations for the awards of ‘outstanding British film’ and
‘outstanding debut by a British writer, director or producer’ will need to
conform to the BFI’s Diversity
Standards, established two years ago to increase representation of
minorities within British film," reports Breitbart London.

According to
the BBC, the nominated films must show they have improved diversity within at
least two of four categories to qualify. The categories are: "On-screen
characters and themes; senior roles and crew; industry training and career
progression; and audience access and appeal to under-represented
audiences."

BAFTA has
said the changes were "a flexible and achievable model, which the whole
industry can adopt as a shared language for understanding diversity." Under
these new standards, the James Bond hit Skyfall could not have won the
BAFTA for "Best British Film" in 2012.

But,
weighed down with all those awards (and by a modest amount of money), she has
nothing to say about blacks targeting whites for horrendous
crimes. And while she insinuates that whites were at root somehow
responsible for all the violence against blacks, she conveniently forgets that
blacks, if anything, share that history. Among other convenient omissions, for
example, black gangs have established records in Chicago of the number
of blacks, including children, who were killed during their internecine
warfare. There were black slave owners in America from the 17th century on up
through the Civil War; call it Antebellum “black privilege.”

In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows
that free black people have owned slaves “in each of the thirteen original
states and later in every state that countenanced slavery,” at least since
Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain
the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.

And for a time, free black people could even “own” the services of
white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in
Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland
owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat
Butler “regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade,”
Halliburton wrote.

“I’ve never been treated badly in life because of my skin color or my
gender,” Kaine told a group of black Baptists in New Orleans. “I think the
burden is on those of us who are in the majority — Caucasians. We have to put
ourselves in a place where we are the minority.”

The “burden” that Kaine mentions obviously means taking on “white
guilt,” despite the fact that – even at the height of slavery – only 1.4% of
whites in America owned slaves. White people were also victims of far more
brutal and longer lasting oppression under the Barbary slave trade….

According to Alicia
Powe, Kaine’s comments emphasize how the left has employed “toxic identity
politics” to “perpetuate class warfare and the narrative of an unjust America,”
with whites demonized as the scapegoats.

It should also be emphasized that no living
black was ever a slave, and no living white was ever a slave owner, either
(except, metaphorically, the Democrats, who, as far back as Lyndon Johnson,
wished to imprison and maintain blacks in their welfare state “plantation”).

But, the issue is one of collectivism.
It is herding individuals, defined by their skin color, and now also by their
political affiliations (Trump supporters are “deplorable”), into warring power
blocs, to relegate individuals into amorphous conglomerations of races responsible
for individual achievements or crimes. To the Left’s agenda, “diversity” is a
value to be implemented, by force, harassment, and statute, if necessary, and
achieved regardless of reason, individual values, and innocence.

Diversity puts a premium on the act of
discrimination in social associations (such as on American
bakers who, for religious reasons, are punished by Federal or state
regulatory laws for refusing to accept gays as customers, or who fire or refuse
to hire Muslims who insist on
wearing their “religious” garb in their stores), by tar-brushing the act –
irrational or not – as a prohibitive offense to be punished, discriminated
against, and banned. All individuals who, rightly or wrongly, do not wish to
hire or associate with blacks or Muslims are automatically branded as “racists”
or “bigots.”

However, Muslims as a group may not be
targeted for discriminatory practices because their acts of
discrimination against infidels and women are allegedly religiously based and
therefore beyond moral judgment. Acts of discrimination based on Christian or
secular beliefs, however, are
discouraged, vilified, or prohibited.

The phenomenon has now been expanded into the
subject of “white privilege,” which in essence, is a contrived but open assault
on Western values on college campuses,
and in Western achievements in general. Most Western advancements in
philosophy, technology, science, the arts, and the rule of law and politics
originated in Europe, which was mostly and incidentally “white.” Thus the
legacy of civilized life is an inherited instance of “white privilege.” Or are
we still waiting for the news of a Minnesota Somalian to claim that he and
his fellow collectivists perfected the probes of Ceres or Pluto?
Or devised a new bypass surgery
technique by an Afghan or Syrian or Palestinian (other than in a machete or
knife attack)?

Just how many offended groups or groups
feeling “unsafe” from or “triggered” by words or someone’s freedom of
expression can there be, such as black and brown people, sexual assault
survivors, Muslims, LGBTQIA+ people, people with low incomes, people with
differing abilities, undocumented immigrants, and anyone that is systematically
targeted along identity
lines?”

Then again, blacks who can be called “middle
or upper class income blacks,” or Asians who excel in science or technology in
school, do not consciously identify with such groups. They are automatically pigeon-holed
by their enemies, who wish to herd them into the stockyards of “diversity”
ready for the smearing or slaughter. Their goal is death.

Aristotle was “white.” But he promulgated
reason. Kepler and Copernicus were “white.” But they helped to define the solar
system. Isaac Newton was “white.” But he developed the laws of physics. Anna Hyatt
Huntington was “white.” But she created heroic statues. Each of these
achievers was a pursuer of and a product of Western values.

I am white, too. Lump me into a group with
these prominent, “white privileged” whites. But, I don’t claim their
achievements, nor would they claim mine. Don’t call me “white privileged.” My privilege
is my mind together with my values. The haters of “white
privilege” have no minds and no values. They are nihilists.

Edward Cline, American Novelist

Edward Cline was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1946. After graduating from high school (in which he learned nothing of value) and a stint in the Air Force, he pursued his ambition to become a novelist. His first detective novel, First Prize, was published in 1988 by Mysterious Press/Warner Books, and his first suspense novel, Whisper the Guns, was published in 1992 by The Atlantean Press. First Prize was republished in 2009 by Perfect Crime. The Sparrowhawk series of novels set in England and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period has garnered critical acclaim (but not yet from the literary establishment) and universal appreciation from the reading public, including parents, teachers, students, scholars, and adult readers who believe that American history has been abandoned or is misrepresented by a government-dominated educational establishment. He is dedicated to Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason in all matters.